4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 18 August 1995 the applicant, a stoker, brought an action before the Budapest Labour Court against his employer, the Budapest Police Department, claiming payment of outstanding salary for the extra hours he had worked. On 22 September 1995 he provided particulars of his claims.
6.  On 6 October 1995 the Labour Court held a hearing and ordered the defendant to submit its pleadings. The defendant complied with this order on 26 October 1995. The applicant specified further his claims on 20 October 1995 and 11 June 1996.
7.  On 1 July 1996 the Labour Court appointed an expert auditor and ordered her to present an opinion within 90 days.
8.  On 28 August, 16 October and 17 December 1996, 16 January, 7 February and 12 May 1997 the applicant submitted further details of his claims.
9.  On 23 June and 28 October 1997 the applicant complained to the President of the Labour Court that the auditor had not yet submitted her opinion. In January 1998 the Labour Court revoked the auditor’s appointment.
10.  On 15 January 1998 the applicant quit his job.
11.  On 27 April 1998 the applicant complained to the President of the National Judicial Council about the Labour Court’s inactivity. On 6 August 1998 the President of the Budapest Regional Court’s Labour Law Section informed the applicant that the protraction of the proceedings was due to the multiple and often unclear particulars of his own claims, the lack of co-operation on the defendant’s side and the length of time taken by the auditor to finalise an opinion.
12.  On 5 May 1998 the Labour Court ordered the defendant to submit supplementary information within 30 days. The defendant complied on 24 June 1998.
13.  On 22 June and 13 July 1998 the applicant again provided particulars of his claims.
14.  On 2 September 1998 the sum of 353,396 Hungarian forints (HUF) was transferred by the defendant to the applicant’s bank account.
15.  On 4 September and 18 December 1998 the Labour Court held hearings. On the latter occasion the Labour Court ordered the parties to discuss the possibility of settling the case. The parties did so on 16 February 1999.
16.  On 19 February 1999 a new judge was appointed to the bench to deal with the case.
17.  On 26 April 1999 the Labour Court appointed another auditor and ordered him to submit his opinion within four months.
18.  On 9 September 1999 the applicant requested the revocation of the new auditor’s appointment on the ground that he had failed to submit his opinion within the prescribed period. The auditor submitted his opinion on 13 October 1999.
19.  On 1 and 16 November 1999 the applicant again provided particulars of his claims.
20.  On 9 February 2000 the Labour Court heard the expert’s opinion. As both parties rejected the opinion, on 28 February 2000 the Labour Court appointed a third expert, the Budapest Auditors’ Institute. On the same day, the Labour Court reminded the parties of their obligation to conduct their case in a bona fide manner.
21.  On 18 May and 20 June 2000 the applicant again submitted further particulars of his claims. Simultaneously, he challenged the presiding judge for bias and requested that the case be transferred to the Pest County Labour Court. His request was dismissed on 14 July 2000.
22.  On 28 July 2000 the Auditors’ Institute submitted its opinion.
23.  In an order dated 8 August 2000 the Labour Court fixed the fee payable to the Auditors’ Institute. On 1 September 2000 the applicant appealed against this order. The Labour Court, erroneously, transferred the case file to the Budapest Regional Court.
24.  On 6 September 2000 the applicant rejected the expert’s opinion. On 13 September 2000 he submitted further details of his claims.
25.  On 23 January 2001 a new judge was again appointed to the bench to hear the case.
26.  On 30 March 2001 the applicant provided further particulars of his claims. On the same day the Labour Court held a hearing, delivered a partial decision and ordered the defendant to pay HUF 110,309 plus accrued interest to the applicant. On 9 June 2001 this decision became final.
27.  Concerning the remainder of the action, the Labour Court held a hearing on 15 June 2001. On the same day the applicant submitted further details of his claims.
28.  On 18 June 2001 the Labour Court ordered the Auditors’ Institute’s opinion to be completed.
29.  On 25 and 28 June 2001 the applicant again specified his claims.
30.  On 3 October 2001 the applicant requested the revocation of the appointment of the Auditors’ Institute and challenged the Budapest Labour Court for bias. His motions were dismissed on 6 November 2001.
31.  On 25 October 2001 the applicant repeatedly complained to the National Judicial Council of the delay in the proceedings.
32.  On 3 December 2001 the Auditors’ Institute submitted its supplementary opinion.
33.  On 13 February 2002 the National Judicial Council informed the applicant of the findings of its enquiry into the length of the proceedings. In its opinion the protraction of the proceedings was attributable to the fact that the applicant had revised his claims on altogether nineteen occasions.
34.  On 14 February 2002 the Labour Court held another hearing at which the applicant again provided further particulars of his claims.
35.  On 28 February 2002 the Labour Court held a hearing and delivered its judgment. It ordered the defendant to pay, under various heads, the sums of HUF 58,033, 395,541 and 25,707 plus accrued interest to the applicant, and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claims. The applicant and the defendant appealed on 11 and 12 April 2002, respectively.
36.  On 11 September 2002 the Budapest Regional Court, sitting as a second-instance court, held a hearing. It upheld the first-instance judgment in so far as the applicant’s claims were accepted. In so far as the Labour Court dismissed part of the applicant’s claims, the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 28 February 2002 and remitted this part of the action to the Labour Court.
37.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, the Labour Court requested the applicant to provide further and better particulars of the remainder of his claims. He did so on 31 October 2002. These proceedings are still pending at first instance.
38.  Meanwhile, on 17 October 2002 the applicant submitted a petition for review of the judgment of 11 September 2002. On 3 March 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s petition for review.